Yup that’s the huge crux of it. We want an update so we know what to expect.
RU and US mains ask Gaijin about Su-30SM and F-18C? “Not this update”
JP mains ask about F-2? “No information at this time”
Why the different messaging? The response the RU and JP mains at least implies that it is coming, just not this update. The reply to JP mains implies there are no plans at all right now and nothing has changed on that front. THAT is concerning and why we are not being patient.
I would expect at least the exterior model of the F-2A to be worked on.
But the way Smin said it made it sound like work hasn’t even begun at all.
“There is no word on this aircraft” makes me think it is being worked on for this update but doesn’t look like it will ready.
It’s not an outright denial like usual. It may slip in at the end(huffs cope)
Thank you for the clarification, I still don’t consider it a counterpoint personally.
@Fireraid233
I’d care more if it was more than just Rafale [I’m not counting Kfir cause that’s trash compared to these two].
Cause Rafale? A lot of public information on it with little translating necessary.
Makes sense it would be ready around the time of F-2.
Now, if F-2 isn’t ready by the March update, I’m going to start complaining.
Likely cause it’s so close to being done and have no concrete information on which update it’ll be ready by.
I mean even if its not im willing to wait for the next update its just frustrating you know? but it is what it is.
Sorry for being late , I got this picture about 2 months ago and the modeling of the F2 seems to have been done a long time ago, but I can’t be sure of it’s authenticity.
Yea it’s impossible to verify as anyone can make a 3d model.
However, Gajin contracts vehicle models to other companies so I’m sure they have it done way in advance and it is ready to add in a dev state (obviously they don’t have time to work on it or it’d be here already).
In addition the picture does have the tell tale black nose for the AAM-3 which is seen in game in adverse weather/lighting conditions.
Outside that the quality is so low it’s hard to match the AAM-4 to what we have in game
In the future, I suppose this japanese 4.5 generation fighter aircraft might be event vehicle rank 9
The first nation 4.5 generation fighter aircraft with AESA radar before other countries
XF-2A can’t be rank 9 since it can carry only AAM-3 and AIM-7. Yes, it should has AESA radar, but with only SARH missiles it can’t be this high. Even now it’s max rank is 8 with BR ~13.0. Also, that one of the saddest parts. It could have been added right after F-16C with 9L and AN/APG-68!
i think
this is just a speculation, they want to have or need to have a collaboration with DMM to add F-2
so unless DMM having a new event or update, i don’t think it coming soon
just a speculation though…
Supposing that’s true, do we know when the next DMM event would be?
that is something that i have no idea on.
and looking for the War Thunder DMM right now it’s only doing the Anniversary event and Seasonal event. so pretty much nothing going on.
At this rate this plane isn’t even gonna be top br when it’s added bruh
If you think some special feature is gonna somehow fix this plane and make it good, I want you to try and think of a time that gaijin has ever NOT disappointed you.
we’re cooked
For air it wont be, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. For ground it probably will be
That dev comment is talking about the ambiguity in implementation for making the data link work across multiple targets with multiple missile launches.
English is kinda finicky like that.
During that time of testing, I could never get datalink to work when hard locking if the missile lost lock. Which is what prompted my initial query if it even works at all or if I’m having bad luck. So that was the context. Their reply implies because it could introduce ambiguity in TWS with multi target launches, so they removed it altogether
“implies” is the key issue with your continued usage of that dev comment as backing for your point, the dev comment doesnt say that DL doesnt work.
“missiles no more receive target position via datalink after target track lose, even if the target track is re-established”
this is the crux of the misunderstanding, i believe. “target track lose” refers to the jet radar lock failing, not the missile seeker.
The important part I think is:
So there is no way to switch from “IOG+DL” to “IOG” and than back to “IOG+DL”
Because they were quoting me regarding the AAM-4:
I’ve looked at a couple of my replays and even hard locking the target doesn’t give the missile DL and instead it’s just IOG after losing TRK. For reference, this is with the AAM-4.
The example in question was me using TWS on a drone and even though I never lost track with TWS, the missile went from IOG+DL to TRK to IOG. So that’s the context from which they replied to me with. My question at the time was trying to see if what Alvis was saying was a good technique, i.e. hard locking the target for maximum information to the missile.
Having said this, I have yet to reproduce this currently which is why I think it’s either a replay bug or something did in-fact change since then (about 4 months ago). I’m leaning on the latter but some confirmation would be nice.
I’ll probably test again later tonight in both ground and air rb with both TWS and hard lock to see if there’s a difference. While the entire start of the conversation is moot (as AESA is being added anyway for two aircraft this update), it would be good to know if it’s worth keeping the radar on for a better hit chance at the cost of constantly broadcasting your location.
Might be a little late to the party but I would be interested in joining said discord if possible
I hope we won’t have to wait too long for this.
Does it get MAW?
